Posted on 08/06/2008 8:58:59 AM PDT by koinonia
Christ tells us he was sent only (or except if you want to be technical) for the lost sheep of the house of Israel. [Mat 15:24]
Christ specifically tells his personally chosen disciples to go only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, and not to the Gentiles or even the Samaritans.
Paul tells us that God appointed him an apostle to the Gentiles contradicting Christ of the Gospels. In Galatians 2:9, Paul says the "pillars" of the Church agreed him and Barnabas to the Gentiles.
Acts (13:46) tell us that Paul and Barnabas went to the Gentiles because the Jews rejected the word of God
Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles."
It was only because of the failure of the Jews to accept what they preached that they turned to the Gentiles. It wasn't because of grace or some miraculous appointment, but because the Jews rejected them.
So, Christ never hinted at going to the Gentiles of having been sent to the Gentiles; Paul claims he was ordained to do that first by God and then by the "pillars" of the Church; and Acts reveals that it was for a very logical and obvious reason which had nothing to do with any grace. It was an afterthought.
NB: Now, just so there is no confusion here: this is my opinion. This is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
It takes a lot of imagination to impute that this has anything to do with Christ. This is a Psalm of Solomon and as far as I know Solomon was not asking for a savior. He is obviously talking about himself and his offspring (re: Sheba).
Rather he lived a very unrighteous life (I guess you could say "like father like son!").
The Orthodox Church commemorates him as a "saint!" and calls him Righteous [sic] Prophet and King. For the life of me I can't figure out why except to justify the inclusion of the three books of the OT that are credited to him (one of which is erotic!).
He is talking about an earthy king and the king's son, who will rule a large area (from sea to sea, which could mean nothing more than from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea!), and all the kings will bow to him (they had no concept of how large the earth is or what people lived there, so they spoke of the immediate area, Middle East, and called it the "earth").
Historical evidence seems to suggest that his kingdom was nowhere near what biblical traditionalists claim, and the authorship of the biblical books (including two Psalm) attributed to him are likewise in question. There is absolutely nothing messianic beyond any doubt in his Psalm as far as I am concerned.
I see two problems with this right off the bat:
(1) You will have to show me where this teaching of Paul's agrees with that of Jesus of the Gospels.
No faith is required according to the following: Psalm 62:2, Proverbs 10:16, Jer 17:10, Eze 18:27, Mat 5:20, the Beatitudes also in Mat 5, Mat 12:37,16:27, 19:17, 25:41-46, Luke 10:26-28, John 5:29, Rom 2:6, 13, 2 Cor 5:10, 11:15, Philippians 2:12, James 2:14, 17, 21-25, 1 Pet 1:17, Rev 2:23, 20:12-13, and 22:14
Faith is required according to Mark 16:16, John 3:18,36, Act 16:30-31, Rom 1:1617, 3:20, 28, 4:2, 4;13, 5;1, 10:9, Gal 2:16, 3:11-12, Eph 2:8-9, Titus 3:5 or basically Paul !
The preponderance of biblical evidence is clearly set against Paul on this issue, whether the Church will admit it or not (I know the Church doesn't like to talk about this!) . It is a Pauline innovation, and it was done with a purpose to give dispensation from Levitican laws (which are from God if the Bible is from God) so that the pagans of Greece and Rome may find it easier to accept this new religion.
Thus, any teaching that either Christ (according to the Gospels) or the Bible in its totality supports Paul's teaching of sola fide justification is patently wrong.
Remember, Paul's mission was to save the Church from extinction as it was dying in Israel. He saved it. And for that the Church has to accept him as the greatest next to Peter. In order to achieve what he had to achieve he even admits
"Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved." [1 Cor 10:33]
In other words...whatever it takes...
(2) Predestination touches upon the matter of free will or no free will. If everything is preordained then we can't decide anything; God decides for us. We can't be held accountable for any of actions then, including sins.
The Reformed and others like them get the idea that God's sovereignty includes God making all decisions in order to be in charge, but neglect to consider biblical evidence that God gave Adam vast freedom to choose, whether it be to sin or to name animals.
The OT considered God sovereign and supreme over all and , yet it also considered man to be free (and responsible) for his actions. Our destiny is our choice. We can choose or reject God. That is our decision. The Bible reminds us: "Choose you this day whom ye will serve ." [Joshua 24:15]
Again, we have here another one of Paul's sweeping generalizations, only to contradict himself with a contrasting statement in the same Epistle! (my emphasis)
"even so through one act of righteousness there resulted in justification of life to all men." (Rom 5:18)
In other words, the justification is brought to all mankind through Christ's act of righteousness (sacrifice on the Cross), and not through faith. We know that because all mankind doesn't believe in Him, yet his sacrifice justified life of all men.
Remember the wedding parable—all are invited but only those who take the proper steps will be selected to come in. The invitation is free; the meal isn't.
But that has the transcendental God reacting to something that happened in time (Adam's fall) as if he didn't know it was coming! In his all knowlege, God would have made that decision before sin entered the world and in fact would have been the screen director that mandated the fall.
I think we’re agreed that God is omniscient, that he knew what was coming. So when I said “after”, I didn’t say that God is in time or reacting to things in time. God is always outside of time, and he freely chooses to create the universe—and he creates it for Christ, with a view to Christ (cf. Colossians 1:16 and I Corinthians 3:23); he foresees the fall (“after” first willing to create) and, in his mercy, wills our redemption in Christ. So it’s not a question of “when”, since God is outside of time, but a question of priority in God’s plan. If God does not first (priority, not time) will to create man, then obviously there would be no redeemer or redemption.
All that aside (I hope :), my main point about Scotus and the way we were actually redeemed has to do with the fact that God could have redeemed us in a variety of ways, but chose to redeem us through the passion and death and resurrection. Christ is not compelled to die on the cross for our redemption, but in conformity with God's free choice to redeem us by way of the cross Christ freely embraces it. Scotus' point about the variety of ways, not necessarily easy to grasp, but valid nonetheless, is that all of Christ’s actions in his human nature have an infinite merit because of the personal union with the divine person of the Word. He could have simply prayed for man’s reconciliation and restoration in his human nature and his prayer would have been efficacious and satisfied God's justice. But God chooses to manifest his love for us sinners by the cross (cf. Romans 5:8-9; John 3:16, etc.). I just discovered that Aquinas taught the same: "For God with His omnipotent power could have restored human nature in many other ways." (Summa III, art.2)
You also wrote: Either God predestined Adam's fall and is directly the power behind the emergence of sin, or God permits our decisions and doesn't know what our decisions will be, but rather reacts to our decisions as we make them, as the Bible seems to suggest. In which case he is neither omniscient nor transcendental.
As you know, God cannot will evil since he is Goodness itself. So although he can permit evil, he never chooses evil, he never wills evil—so clearly he does not predestine Adam’s fall and therefore is not the power behind the emergence of sin. But it doesn’t follow that if God permits our decisions he doesn’t know what they will be. So I think we are on the same page. Predestination, or foreknowledge, on the part of God means that he is utterly omniscient and transcendent, that he does not predetermine our acts (he foreknows them and free chooses to bring to glory those who will freely correspond to his call). As you so succinctly put it,
“The invitation is free; the meal isn't.”
LOL! :) I never thought of it in quite those terms, but well put. And God foreknows our response and thus, before the foundation of the world predestines to glory in Christ those “few” who will cooperate (no predetermination here—he foreknows the cooperation of the elect and therefore predestines—not predetermines—them to glory). For Duns Scotus, and I’m of the same opinion and I think I hear you saying the same, God is utterly free in his decrees and man is utterly free in his response. This is why the “reformers” mocked Duns Scotus by calling people who followed his Catholic doctrine “dunces”, especially his doctrine on freedom, both man’s and God’s.
Finally, you wrote of the Incarnation that: His primary and, in fact, only purpose was to bring back "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Mat 15:24) into his fold.
If you said “in my opinion His primary…”, I would simply respond that I’m of another opinion. I think Fr. Florovsky’s excellent presentation, very sober and reserved, makes it clear that the opinion that God’s masterpiece in all creation, the Incarnation, was willed absolutely and not simply as a remedy for man’s sin is a valid opinion to be respected, even if one chooses the opposite opinion (and this is precisely what Aquinas did (Summa III, art. 3): "I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion." He recognized my opinion as “probable”, but felt and chose the opinion that you are defending as “more probable”—at least grant me the “probable, but I beg to differ” of Aquinas ;)
Sorry to be so long-winded. May HIS be the glory! Amen.
In a literal sense, yes, that is the way it is supposed to be.
Follows is from the "Ordinary Form" of the Mass (i.e., the Novus Ordo)
During the procession, the deacon processes in carrying the Evangeliary (Book of Gospels) slightly elevated. Explicitly, this is NOT to be done with a Lectionary (which contains all of the readings). (Note: in the absence of a deacon, the lector (an instituted minister) may carry in the Evangeliary, but it does not say that a reader (an extraordinary minister) may do so)
Following the procession, the deacon (or lector, in the absence of a deacon) places the Evangeliary on the altar. Again, explicitly, the Lectionary is not placed on the altar.
A lector (or reader in the absence of an instituted lector) will read the readings from the Old Testament and Epistles, and may pray the psalm (in the absence of a psalmist), but only a deacon (or priest, in the absence of the deacon) may proclaim the Gospel. Prior to proceeding to the ambo to proclaim the Gospel, the deacon receives the following blessing from the Celebrant:
The Lord be in your heart and on your lips that you may worthily proclaim his gospel. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, + and of the Holy Spirit.
If the celebrant proclaims the Gospel, he makes a profound bow in front of the altar and says the following prayer:
Almighty God, cleanse my heart and my lips that I may worthily proclaim your gospel.
A couple of other notes:
The reason we do all of the above is that we believe that the words of the Gospel are the words of Jesus Christ, Himself, speaking to us.
Thank you markomalley. Indeed, the Church gives special honor and respect and primacy to the Gospels because of that. Without the Gospels there is no Christianity.
The Protestant side considers the whole Bible the literal word of God, and argues that all scriptures are equal. But the whole Bible does not give us Christianity. The Gospels do. Likewise, the Epistles and NT deuterocanonicals would be incomplete without the Gospels as reference.
Thus, the Gospels are a lens that brings Christian faith to a meaningful focal point, the way Christ is the lens through which we can go to and see God the Father.
Hence, the Old Testament is conformed to the New Testament and the New Testament to the the Gospels in particular.
If you want to talk about what Catholics used to do, many of them used to receive communion only once a year, and not at all until they were confirmed at the age of 12-15 or so. See Eamon Duffy's Stripping of the Altars for more details.
That's correct.
No, it isn't. The Byzantine Rite (Catholic or Orthodox) indeed uses a one-year cycle, but the readings are not identical to those of the Tridentine Rite. The liturgical calendar is different, too, which automatically precludes having the same readings on some days. (Just what do the Orthodox read for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, Kosta? ;-))
Let me be clear that I agree that the all of the canonical scriptures are the Written Word of God. They all work together to reveal the Triune God's love for His creation. The Old Testament tells the story of our need for a saviour. The epistles tell us about life in Christ. The apocolypse reveals the spiritual truths about God's victory over Lucifer and his minions, culminating in glory. But...
Thus, the Gospels are a lens that brings Christian faith to a meaningful focal point, the way Christ is the lens through which we can go to and see God the Father.
The Gospels are that fulcrum upon which the remainder of Scriptures hang. They are the pinnacle of God's revelation to man. They reveal to us the Advent, Life, Passion, and Resurrection of the Lamb.
Nothing I said above should be taken to denigrate the remainder of God's Holy Word. Each expression of that Word relates God's love story with us and should be cherished in our hearts. However, the Gospels DO deserve a particular reverence, as they proclaim the Words of Christ.
To me, St. Paul alone has no authority, ergo his verses by themselves carry no wait to me unless they can be shown to be in harmony with the Gospels. I know this is sacrilege, but such references will only result in my responses showing why I take him with a grain of salt. In some ways, he "created" Christianity based on what he calls "his" gospel.
You mention 1 Col 1:16. In verse 15, St. Paul calls Christ the "firstborn of all creation" (prototokos pases ktiseos), in essence calling Christ a creature.
St. John on the other hand says that in the beginning (at the creation) the Word was with God, and the word was God. Christian theology states that the Word pre-existed creation and is not the "firstborn of the creation," the first "creature" through whom the rest of creation was made.
Moreover, Genesis 1:1 says nothing of any Word. Where does John get this from? He is re-writing Genesis.
We also have a conflict with Jesus is God vs Jesus is man or Jesus is lesser than God form various New Testament statements, and it is easy to see how some of these led different people into various Christological heresies.
In Matthew 19:17, Mark 10:18 Christ is quoted as saying "Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God."
Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34 Christ is quoted by two authors (neither rof which was there!) as saying "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
Mark 16:19 says "...he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God."
Even John, who is generally the greatest source of Jesus is God statements says in John 8:40 "But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God."
And again, in John 14:28 Christ is quoted as saying "My Father is greater than I" and in John 20:17 "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."
Which can be reduced to Mark and Matthew (and some odd John statements, possibly not of the same date as the rest).
There are of course assertions that Jesus is God to a much greater extent (summarizing them for brevity), such as John 1:1, 1:14, 8:58, John 10:30-31, 14:9, 20:28, Acts 20:28, Colossians 1:16, 2:9, 1 Timothy 3:16, Titus 2:13, Philippians 2:6, Hebrews 1:8, Revelation 1:17, Revelation 22:13
Which are authored John and Paul.
This clear-cut division (Mark-Matthew, Paul-John) is indicative of the problem of a dichotomy that emerges here: one seeing Jesus as a Jewish messiah (a human), and sub ordained to God, and the other one as deity equal to and essentially identical to God (a heretical concept in Judaism).
You also reference and 1 Cor 3:23 which says "you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God." Correct trinitarian statement would read "and Christ is God.
So, orthodox faith states that neither did God create Christ for the world, nor does Christ belong to God, but is God. Orthodox Christianity does not make distinction between Christ and God, the way Paul does on occasion.
God created the world for his reasons which he doesn't reveal. It couldn't have been out of a need; it couldn't have been out of any lack; it couldn't have been out of any unfulfilled desire; God lacks nothing and God's will is not based on a need or even a purpose, because God cannot be subject to a purpose; God eos not exist for a purpose but for himself; he is his own purpose and reason.
St. John of Damascus (8th century), the last of the Desert Fathers, outlines the whole Trinitarian subject in his "An exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" which is available online. His assertion is that God is the supreme Wisdom and that this wisdom couldn't be "wordless" (i.e. without expression), or without a spirit. So, the Word is simply an expresison of the divine Wisdom.
Any expression of our inner state can be a "word," whether it is in a spoken or written word, in art or music or any other creative expression. In that sense we can see why the Word was "with God" and is God, and there was never a time when the Word was not. The word is eternally begotten as an expresison of the Wisdom, and the Spirit eternally proceeds form the Wisdom and is made manifest through the Word.
To go back to our initial discussion, after some of these hurtles have been defined so that you know where I am coming from, Adam either fell because God wanted him to fall or God allowed him to fall and then devised the "plan" of salvation in response to sin.
There is at least some biblical evidence that this could be so (such as Isa 38:5), that God "jumps in" and changes things and we call it God's intervention, rather than a plan.
The first possibility makes everything a God's choice, and none of ours. The second one makes it all our choice and none of God's.
As I said before, you can't have it both ways: we can either be independent and responsible for our actions and God intervenes in time to save us from perdition, or God ordains everything from the fall to the salvation.
If we are independent of God's will then God is not perfectly free. This is possible only if God wills to limit his freedom in order for us to have some of it.
I will get back to the rest of your post later on.
NB: These are my views and not necessarily the views of the Orthodox Church.
Yes I realize that's the position of the Church. I did not mean to suggest that the Church teaches otherwise.
They all work together to reveal the Triune God's love for His creation
Really? Dashing a mother and her child to pieces (Hos 10:14) is an expression of "love?" Sound more like the Muslim "mercy killing" to me.
Mental note: Only Muslims could come up with such an oxymoron!
The Old Testament tells the story of our need for a saviour
Post-Babylonian captivity apocalyptic Judaism does, the Torah speaks none of that.
The Gospels are that fulcrum upon which the remainder of Scriptures hang.
That's right. Without the fulcrum, there is nothing to hang on and achieve (reasonable) balance.
They are the pinnacle of God's revelation to man
From the Christian point of view, and even among many Christian sects and cults that is hardly the case. Some Protestant sects place much greater emphasis on the Old Testament and Paul, and try to conform the Gospels to them, rather than the other way around.
Each expression of that Word relates God's love story with us and should be cherished in our hearts
Each word? You mean to tell me the loving God of the OT couldn't find a single innocent child in Sodom and Gomorrah? Even their children ere corrupt and good for only for destruction?
I was merely stating what the Church practices and why. I am not a Bible apologist.
Well, if you can't confess (being a child) you need not receive communion. It's not a magic "Jesus pill." That's why I don't understand why the Orthodox practice communing children, even infants.
Either way it's all man-made tradition, which can change. There is nothing in the Gospels or anywhere in the Bible that says we should receive every time we are in church or once a year or even once in a lifetime for that matter, or how we should prepare for it.
"Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:14-16
St. Paul's Epistles are difficult and the unlearned and unstable make a mess of them, nonetheless St. Paul's Epistles and "the other Scriptures" are the inspired Word of God.
The Lord give you his peace.
Yes I would expect the so-called Byzantine Catholics to use the same cycle as the Orthodox. But we were talking about the Latin Rite. The non-Laitn Rites are but 2% of the Catholic Communion. I would imagine that makes it "extra-ordinary" element in the Church, an exception rather than a rule compared to the 98% Latin form.
(Just what do the Orthodox read for the Feast of All Saints on November 1, Kosta? ;-))
November 1, according to which calendar? The one used by the minority which the Greek Church and other smaller Churches use so as to "conform" with the west or the Old Calendar used by over 85% of the Orthodox?
No, we can't, because Paul cannot be used as a stand-alone authority. It has to be corroborated against the Gospels to have any credibility. Otherwise it is indeed "his" gospel, as he calls it.
2 Peter is not written by Peter and was one of those heavily disputed books of the early Church for most of the four canon-forming centuries. You are using a source that is included in the NT for reason other than inspiration (one was to appease the Pauline-Petrine split in the Church). The Gospels, which were written after both Peter and Paul, make no mention of Pauline Epistles even as a fact, let alone as scriptures, not even John whose Gospel was written at the end of the first century makes any mention of them.
2 Peter also speaks of people becoming impatient with the second coming and is redefining what was "really" meant by NT references to Christ's a anticipated early return(base don the Gospels).
The early Christians didn't have such impatience. They firmly believed that Christ would return within their lifetime on earth. As time pressed on and the generation that knew Christ began to "taste death" something urgently had to be done and that's when 2 Peter comes on stage, to not only mend the rift between Paul and Peter but also to reset the clock so to say.
Paul firmly believed in the second coming as something that will happen shortly. In 1 Cor 7:29, Paul says "the time is short." This belief had a solid footing in the beginning, but as the century drew to a close, it becomes obvious that a new definition of the second coming was needed, and 2 Peter fulfilled that need.
Gospels are the only part of the NT that is presented as an actual eyewitness account of Christ (never mind that Mark and Luke were not eyewitnesses), and as such must be used to corroborate everything else that was written about Christ before and after.
Thus, Pauline epistles cannot serve as stand-alone authority if there is nothing in the Gospels to corroborate their claims. Otherwise, we are giving Paul poetic license to literally create his own religion.
But, hey, it's your call.
If Christ is not true man (the God-man), then he didn't suffer and die (God cannot suffer or die) and this would make his resurrection meaningless and would mean that we are still stuck in our sins. So I know that when you say Christ is God you are not denying that he is man.
As to St. Paul's beautiful expression, "firstborn of all creation" (prototokos pases ktiseos) in Colossians 1:15, this ties in with Philip Yancey's point about the primacy of Christ and the primary motive of the Incarnation. Clearly, Jesus is not the "firstborn of all creatures" chronologically--there are innumerable creatures born in time before him. So what does St. Paul mean? In the eternal purpose of God Christ is willed first--he is the firstborn in God's design, then he wills to create all things "through and unto" Christ, the one mediator between God and men. There is nothing contrary to the Gospel here. But as I noted, if you don't accept Paul's Epistles as inerrant Scripture, then I am writing more to "all" than to "kosta50".
Got to run.....
It makes no difference if one is dealing with an Orthodox Jew, a devout Muslim or a Christian of any flavor. They all do the same thing: they show you a passage from a book and they tell you "this is truth; you must beieve it or else we can't talk." This approach is inherently self-rigtheous and arrogant, the exact opposite of what the religious people profess.
I can understand that many religious people by necessity must be dogmatists because they have no objective proof. So, unless you accept their scripture as scripture, they have no ground on which to continue a discussion.
They are not interested in a discussion. They are interested only in dogmatic nailing of their beliefs into everyone else's heads.
I gave you historical, biblical, linguistic and logical reasons for my opinions. To which you respond "Christ is God."
If we are going to pat each other on the back and agree then this is a feel-good much-a-do about nothing waste of bandwith. I was under the impression that this was a debating forum where people are challenged and required to defend their positions in real world terms, rather than from a pulpit.
Apparently I was wrong. The religion forum perhaps should be named more appropriately the dogmatic forum, where the "official truth" is regurgitated by mutually agreeing dogmatists.
Please accept my apologies. I don't mean to be offensive. Perhaps my entries don't convey the fact that this is a breath of fresh air for me to have an intelligent discussion on such things, even when we don't all agree.
When I wrote that "Christ is God", I am agreeing with what you wrote in 71: Correct trinitarian statement would read "and Christ is God." But insisting, based on Scripture and the Councils that God became man, that he, remaining God, became a creature born of Mary. And so I don't think St. Paul is out of hand in his statements, but inspired.
In the end, regarding the theme of this thread, I hold the opinion, and am willing to defend it, that the primary motive of the Incarnation was the glory of God ad extra, regardless of whether Adam had sinned or not. It is not a dogma, but neither is the other opinion that the primary or exclusive reason for the Incarnation is to remedy sin. I posted the article and have been defending the position of Duns Scotus not because I have an axe to grind, but because I think Christians should at least think about it. So if I seem dogmatic, it's probably more that I'm stubborn and irritable when I should be "meek and lowly of heart" like Jesus.
Kosta50, God bless you and keep you.
You know, when Galileo Gaililei invited the Vatican officials to look at the moon through his small 30-power telescope and they saw craters, they said it was an illusion.
According to the cardinals, Satan was creating a deceptive illusion of craters on a "heavenly" body, and we all "know" (through some "revelation" or something to that effect) that anything that is "in heaven" is perfect and cannot have craters. All planets, therefore, must be perfect spheres.
This is the type of dogmatism I am talking about.
When Galileo observed with the same telescope different (lunar-like) phases of Venus, it was obvious that Venus could not be going around us, as was believed and taught by the Church, but rather around the sun, just as we do.
For this irrefutable proof of heliocentricity, based on simple geometry of shadows and observation, coupled with some intelligence, Galileo was accused of "vehement heresy" and would have been burned at stake for this were it not for his reputation and old age. He died in a house arrest, as a convicted "heretic." The Catholic Church did not recant its ridiculous anathema against him until 1992!
Nothing illustrates better that this type of retrograde mentality is alive and well then in various oxymorons called "creation museums," where dinosaurs and humans are shown living together. Or in the Evangelical literalistic journals where they insist man was created "just the way we are" less then 10,000 years ago.
It is not Satan but the very people who arrogate themselves to be the mouthpieces of God who are deceiving the world.
I remember my daughter attending a Baptist church in her early teens because her best friend was Baptist. We spoke often about these issues and when I mentioned fossils to her, I was shocked with her answer. She said "they were planted in the gorund by Satan, to deciev us."
At that moment I knew the same spirit that condemned Galileo was alive and well among Bible thumpers. They are the reptilian size brain speed bumps to our betterment as a human race, a reactionary force that would rather have the whole world believe everything in their Bible. This includes the notion that the disease is caused by "demons," (it must be true, after all, it's in the Bible, right?) and that God in the flesh believed it too!
Please, I have no stomach for anyone who is willing to say that medicine belongs to demonology because, after all, diseases are either caused by God's wrath or, worse, by demons.
So, when they tell me that Jesus believed in Noah and in Moses, and Jonah, I remind them that he also believed diseases were caused by satanic spirits. But, it's all to no avail, because it changes nothing. All they have is the Bible and everything else is satanic "deception."
Good luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.